The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; the Art of Controversy eBook

XL.

If you make an induction, and your opponent grants
you the particular cases by which it is to be supported,
you must refrain from asking him if he also admits
the general truth which issues from the particulars,
but introduce it afterwards as a settled and admitted
fact; for, in the meanwhile, he will himself come
to believe that he has admitted it, and the same impression
will be received by the audience, because they will
remember the many questions as to the particulars,
and suppose that they must, of course, have attained
their end.

XII.

If the conversation turns upon some general conception
which has no particular name, but requires some figurative
or metaphorical designation, you must begin by choosing
a metaphor that is favourable to your proposition.
For instance, the names used to denote the two political
parties in Spain, Serviles and Liberates,
are obviously chosen by the latter. The name
Protestants is chosen by themselves, and also
the name Evangelicals; but the Catholics call
them heretics. Similarly, in regard to
the names of things which admit of a more exact and
definite meaning: for example, if your opponent
proposes an alteration, you can call it an innovation,
as this is an invidious word. If you yourself
make the proposal, it will be the converse. In
the first case, you can call the antagonistic principle
“the existing order,” in the second, “antiquated
prejudice.” What an impartial man with
no further purpose to serve would call “public
worship” or a “system of religion,”
is described by an adherent as “piety,”
“godliness”: and by an opponent as
“bigotry,” “superstition.”
This is, at bottom, a subtle petitio principii.
What is sought to be proved is, first of all, inserted
in the definition, whence it is then taken by mere
analysis. What one man calls “placing in
safe custody,” another calls “throwing
into prison.” A speaker often betrays his
purpose beforehand by the names which he gives to things.
One man talks of “the clergy”; another,
of “the priests.”

Of all the tricks of controversy, this is the most
frequent, and it is used instinctively. You hear
of “religious zeal,” or “fanaticism”;
a “faux pas” a “piece of
gallantry,” or “adultery”; an “equivocal,”
or a “bawdy” story; “embarrassment,”
or “bankruptcy”; “through influence
and connection,” or by “bribery and nepotism”;
“sincere gratitude,” or “good pay.”

XIII.

To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must
give him the counter-proposition as well, leaving
him his choice of the two; and you must render the
contrast as glaring as you can, so that to avoid being
paradoxical he will accept the proposition, which is
thus made to look quite probable. For instance,
if you want to make him admit that a boy must do everything
that his father tells him to do, ask him “whether
in all things we must obey or disobey our parents.”
Or, if a thing is said to occur “often,”
ask whether by “often” you are to understand
few or many cases; and he will say “many.”
It is as though you were to put grey next black, and
call it white; or next white, and call it black.